Comments

If the comment,"Ethically, leaders do share a common responsibility to narrow the gap between the weak and the strong" is valid then I would hope that means to build up the weak and not tear down the strong. Many people in government and the media focus more on tearing down the strong due to it's appeal to the weak. Calling people "Fat Cats" is easier than telling people they need to get an education where the unemployment rate is only 4%.

Posted by RTodd at December 15, 2009 8:22 AM

Yes, I read that article in the Financial Times as when it came out was delivered to my inbox. When I first read it, I thought the same: "Hooray!" I then immediately realized that GE Financial, as you have indicated, played a large role in the mortgage meltdown. After that I soon realized that GE is getting billions of dollars from the government to expand the grid and are basically doing so in China. How are we supposed to rebuild the middle class without jobs? It is clear that Mr. Immelt has admitted mistakes. It is honorable that he has done so. My question now is what is he going to do about it? What is he doing as a leader to "narrow the gap" which was brought largely by the large numbers of working poor that his leadership helped to create? One of the main reasons that "the American people are poorer" and its not just in that bottom 25 percent but well into the middle 50 percent, is that their jobs have been shipped over seas. How do you rebuild the middle class or better the working poor without jobs that pay living wages?

Posted by Judith Ellis at December 15, 2009 9:03 AM

Shared my thoughts on this over on your Facebook entry. But in a nutshell, it remains to be seen if G.E. proper will actually demonstrate this profound shift in philosophy, or operate, well, just like G.E. (Which I sometimes refer to in discussions as being an acronym for "Gargantuan Endeavor" or "Giant Enterprise," depending on the content at that particular microsecond.)

Posted by Dan Gunter at December 15, 2009 9:20 AM

...as Gordon Gekko's severed head is paraded down Wall Street on a pike.

I fully agree that shareholder value should be a result, not a strategy, but just like public schools are being graded on the Standards Of Learning (SOLs... what a coincidental acronym), you write your playbook based on the rulebook.

If the only vehicle for monetary growth for 95% of the population are stocks and bonds, then stock price and shareholder value becomes the coin of the realm, doesn't it? Who wants to run a cool, smart, innovative company that no one will invest in?

Now that the truth is out, when does the rulebook get changed?

(Wow, this is three gamechangers in one month... Tiger Woods, the Global Warming scam and now this one. Amazing.)

Posted by Randy Spangler at December 15, 2009 9:44 AM

"It is honorable that he has done so. My question now is what is he going to do about it? "

This link provides an answer to that question. Hat's off to Jeff!

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jC0yJXsRvePSa1vb4_Ck3bbMYyjgD9CJA3A00

Posted by zorro at December 15, 2009 9:44 AM

Tom,

Great post. What Welch said reminded me of the time I got to meet Ed Freeman, who invented stakeholder theory. He said that when he submitted his first academic article on stakeholder theory the editors returned it saying that they had fixed his error. They had crossed out 'stakeholder' and replaced it with 'shareholder'. We've come a long way.

@Judith
I agree that our middle class has taken a tremendous hit, but I'm not sure blaming offshoring is the answer. It can be win-win, plus it is of benefit to other workers in other countries. I think we should be looking for ways to help all of us (like funding education, which fuels innovation), no matter what country we belong to.

Posted by Aaron Windeler at December 15, 2009 9:53 AM

"I agree that our middle class has taken a tremendous hit, but I'm not sure blaming offshoring is the answer. "

Five gives you ten that your occupation, whatever it may be, is not impacted by off-shoring.

Posted by zorro at December 15, 2009 10:02 AM

Aaron, good points you raise in the last paragraph (especially.) In a truly global economic environment, we hear and use words and phrases such as "North American Free TRADE Agreement." [emphasis mine]. The concept of "trade" is get something of value for giving something of value. I think that as a nation we're either in a state of flux/transition, or just plain confused as to what it really is that we "give" in trade. We mastered mass production. We exported it. They improved upon it and slaughtered us in that game. We claimed we shifted to a "service based" economy. Now, I deal with the reality that even the company with whom I register most of my client's websites is actually located overseas. The collective "they" are rapidly one-upping us in much of the service sector. So now, we are facing the harsh realities of our banking and economic thinking and practices of the last several decades and much of the world has gone right along with us for the ride. Bad trade on that last one.

Education. Innovation. Execution...

If we could truly become (as a nation) the masters of these, we are poised to change the world for the better. And by no means am I saying this for hyperbole. We had "Excellence" in the palm of our hand, and we traded that off (W. Edwards Deming, et al, in exchange for better, cheaper good.) Evidence shows we were historically the pace setters and innovators in almost everything. But as of late, the world beats a path to our doorstep, then grabs the best we have to offer, runs off with it, and shows back up like a door-to-door salesman later and sells us the "new and improved" version.

Why not be whipping out our wallets for things that spell change for the better?

And what do we REALLY have to offer in trade? I know it's got to be something. But it's getting harder and harder to figure out "what?" We'd better. That, or accept the fact that we are dead on-track to becoming the world's butler, we just haven't been fitted for the dark suit and bowtie... just yet.

Posted by Dan Gunter at December 15, 2009 10:23 AM

"(Which I sometimes refer to in discussions as being an acronym for "Gargantuan Endeavor" or "Giant Enterprise," depending on the content at that particular microsecond.)"

Hey, if Jeff Immelt can change his tone, can't we? He's obvious listening at the very least. And maybe he's doing more than that.
Check out this link.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jC0yJXsRvePSa1vb4_Ck3bbMYyjgD9CJA3A00

Posted by zorro at December 15, 2009 10:34 AM

Zorro, I did check it out. And thank you for sharing it.

If "The genius is in the details," I maintain the "elegance is in the execution."

Thanks again for the link.

Posted by Dan Gunter at December 15, 2009 10:50 AM

Aaron – You speak of blame. I speak of reality, past and present. But there is something to be done about all of this and finding a solution we must. I am not, however, for nice words while actions run counter to those words. Who will the jobs in China benefit? Mr. Immelt seems to have both apologized for GE's actions in its role in creating the working poor and continued the very same. I agree with you about education. But how do you suppose the working poor and struggling middle class will pay for it? Shall we extend a socialist system of education right through college? With regards to the benefit to other workers in other countries, there seems to be very little win win there. How about those working at Walmart who can't even afford health benefits while the Walton family members collect upwards of two billion dollars annually a piece if I'm not mistaken, while their employees are unable to make a living wage? Where is the win win there? You can be sure that Walmart employees will not be sending their kids to college. Again, I ask, shall we? This win win situation in many large corporations is just BS. By the way, what is GE's stock today? Did becoming a large conglomerate with tentacles reaching throughout the entire fiber of America help its growth? Was that innovation for this once great industrial company to be able to do all things so very well?

Posted by Judith Ellis at December 15, 2009 11:50 AM

Yes, I was taken with his words as well. I think however, he left one criteria out of his four factors. Credibility. Why would anyone believe a leopard can change his spots? I hope I am wrong, but ...

here is what my reaction was http://wp.me/pvcmi-2T

Posted by Mike Neiss at December 15, 2009 12:19 PM

"Mr. Immelt seems to have both apologized for GE's actions in its role in creating the working poor and continued the very same."

His actions line up with his words. For several years now, GE appliances have been on the chopping block. It no longer is. (see link above) These appliances are made here. This is a big deal. Who else has done this?
He deserves a round of applause.

Posted by zorro at December 15, 2009 12:24 PM

Zorro - Thanks for the link. I appreciate GE's effort there. It's a start and I give Immelt a round of applause for that effort. But continue he and other leaders must!

Posted by Judith Ellis at December 15, 2009 12:40 PM

I'm not a climatologist and I suspect that Randy Spangler isn't either. But what seems more likely is that his becoming "friends" with Sarah Palin and being one of her "followers" have rubbed off. :-)

Posted by Judith Ellis at December 15, 2009 12:45 PM

Mike, guess part of the question IS do we end up seeing a revolution (yay!!!) or "evolution" (yawn.) Or neither?

Ball's definitely in Immelt's court. At least he's set a lofty standard. I guess reaching for that and falling short would be better than saying "We're still in business, so we'll just do the same old things over and over and..."

Posted by Dan Gunter at December 15, 2009 1:21 PM

If 'The genius is in the details,' I maintain the 'elegance is in the execution.'"

This is beautiful, Dan.

Posted by Judith Ellis at December 15, 2009 1:39 PM

In thinking of the Welch model and the leaders he mentored (Nardelli, Bossidy, McInerny etc) it appears that massive leverage and financial engineering was used as a friend would say the way Jesse Livermore did in "bucket shops." By the way, I have read all of Welch's books and have learned from them and indeed enjoyed reading them. However, I am still baffled by the words and deeds. In all of these cases what was being produced? Where was the innovation?

Posted by Judith Ellis at December 15, 2009 2:00 PM

@zorro
You're mostly right, and yes, this does color my feelings on the matter. I feel that as a political matter we should be open to free trade, but be better at helping the people who are distrupted by it. Personally, if my job was outsourced, yes, I would be very angry.

@Judith
Yes, I think that we need to have more government assistance in our higher education system - I was educated in a state school & my tuition was subsidized. This is one great way to help the middle class.

The jobs that are moved to China help the Chinese.

I agree about Walmart - though to a certain extent that has helped us by lowering prices of goods. I would not be opposed to their profits being taxed more and those revenues being used to buy health care for their workers. (I don't know enough about the history of GE to comment on that, so I won't).

I suspect our politics are quite different & we will never really see eye-to-eye, but I'm glad I get to read your words because you raise good points & concerns.

@Dan
Well, I'd say that we still innovate better than anyone else, but that may slip away from us. And, yes, we have lost a lot of the jobs that used to mean middle-class America. I don't know where the new jobs will come from to replace the manufacturing & service sectors that we've lost (though with our low dollar, manufacturing may make a small comeback). We may just have to get used to compeating with the rest of the world for middle-class jobs like we never have before. That stinks for us Americans, but it is good for the rest of the world. It isn't a very inspiring message for those who don't have jobs (a position I've been in recently), but I simply don't think protectionism is the answer.

Posted by Aaron Windeler at December 15, 2009 2:58 PM

Many new jobs can be created by applying the "locavor" food concept to manufacturing - if the "global marketing/distribution" meme can be translated more toward the cottage industry/factor concept that presaged the industrial revolution.

Combined with sustainable communities where possible and with local clean energy production, the "new garage industries" can be the Hewlett-Packards and Apples of the future, and not just in high tech but in consumer goods foremost.

Posted by Randy Bosch at December 15, 2009 3:34 PM

Are you kidding me? To stand up in front of valiant soldiers soon to be laying theri lives on the line and spout that nonsense required chutzpah on Mr. Immelt's part. And that, as GE continues to do shady business with Iran. And the bottom quarter poorer than they have ever been? Hogwash. Where's the stats? Open your eyes and see the reality. The "poor" in the US are really anthing but. I grew up in the welfare Cadillac days and I am seeing much the same today, except without so much gov't aid. Those who can not afford health insurance or othere essentials happily plunk down dollars for Blue Ray players, discs, I-pods, I-tunes, etc. and etc. Minimum wage workers wander through their days with their ear buds jacked in and their feet shod in Nikes, for heavens sake. And what if Immelt's claim is true? What has he done about it? How many plants has GE shut down in the US over the past decade and moved to Mexico or China? Words. Empty, hollow words. Dr. Peters gets suckered by Immelt every time. The only thing missing on this thread is Trevor spouting how wonderful Immelt's socialist ideals are and how wonderful it would be if every capitalist pig held the same principles about taking care of the "weak."

Shareholder value doesn't matter? I hope your shareholders don't find out you think that or your capital will dry up completely! Then how will you finance your lofty R&D dreams, Mr. Immelt? Loans? Hah!

Bah...

Posted by RUKM? at December 15, 2009 4:47 PM

Aaron - Are you sure you understand my politics? Your suspicions may not be founded. Anyway, I'm not looking for agreement, but rather to have my thoughts provoked, even changed. Thank you for your words.

With regards to subsidy for students who can't afford college, I support this. We already have things such as Pell Grants. Was there a change to this program under the last administration? Were such grants cut severely? For me, the best choice would be for parents to work and provide the education for their children. I would not like to see the government by and large assume the responsibility of every single child regardless of their parents’ ability to send their children to college.

Speaking of innovation and education, when I lived in Europe and there were many young people who were very smart and had degrees in various fields and yet innovation was lacking. Unemployment was very high, disproportionately at the time to the States. There was also a difference in simply the way these young people thought. They appeared to be largely philosophical and dependent on their parents and the government.

Education in and of itself does not spur innovation. It seems to be largely cultural, as in the kind of environment that thrives. These young people had free education and health care. Yet, there was not a big push for innovation. By the way, I'm for access to health care for those who can't afford it. I am for the public option or something similar that would allow access.

The point here is that just because there is education does not mean that there will be innovation. Many of the young people that I knew in Europe had advanced degrees including PhDs. They were without jobs and the red tape for getting government jobs was extraordinary. It seemed like this was the objective. Most were well into their 20s, even their 30s and living at home with their parents. Perhaps this was cultural.

Do these comments better indicate my politics? :-)

Posted by Judith Ellis at December 15, 2009 4:57 PM

@Judith
Yes, they do. I'm not used to nuanced and thoughtful political positions on the internet - so I was thrown for a bit of a loop.

I don't know about the Pell grants, but tution at many state schools are going up (see California). I think that tuition should be subsidized by the state, but I see your point - making people take on some loans spur them into actually having to get a job and contribute to society.

Posted by Aaron Windeler at December 15, 2009 5:21 PM

I really like Randy's idea of the locavore being the "new garage industries." Aaron wrote earlier about our being able to purchase goods for less with imports from China as in the case of Walmart. What he did not mention was how the likes of Walmart and Home Depot destroyed communities all over America where loans were made and layaways given. Credit from banks largely changed this, didn't it? Were there interest rates on layaways? I can't remember.

My mother used to put things on layaway. I remember having to wait for my new Sunday dress or school outfit, going with her week after week to put deposits down. Sometimes I would ask if I could see the outfits on layaway. Delayed gratification is good. Who benefits mostly from the interest rates of credit cards? Banks!!! A banker friend recently told me “if people knew how we made money they would open up their own bank.” Who largely benefits from debt? The lender does.

It used to be that people exchanged goods and you knew everyone in the community because you shopped there and knew the owners. The concept of the locavore will rebuild communities. In fact, in Detroit there are a number of communities where young people have just commandeered whole abandoned areas and begun doing just that. But does this seem like a fringe movement? How can we mainstream this idea?

Posted by Judith Ellis at December 15, 2009 5:23 PM

Yes, Aaron, I've read about the tuition hike in California. A 32% increase feels criminal. It's just terrible. The State of California just seems poorly run, just like my State of Michigan. The governor of California is a Republican and the governor of Michigan is a Democrat. This stuff goes beyond political parties. I'm actually quite sick of many "leaders" in BOTH parties.

Posted by Judith Ellis at December 15, 2009 5:33 PM

"The bottom 25 percent of the American population is poorer than they were 25 years ago. That is just wrong. Ethically, leaders do share a common responsibility to narrow the gap between the weak and the strong."

Forgive me for being underwhelmed at one corporate leader standing up in one venue and stating what ought to be obvious. When the average well-off yuppie gets a sense of perspective and sheds his/her sense of entitlement -- when he/she understands just how fortunate he/she is, compared to the average citizen in the US (let alone the world as a whole), and furthermore, understands that this is largely a matter of fortune, of luck, of unearned blessings -- then we might see some meaningful changes. Until then, it's all window dressing and feel-good gestures.

Posted by Mary Malmros at December 15, 2009 6:41 PM

Motivation? Yes, I'm pondering the motivation behind Jeff Immelt's humility and candiness. If you read around, you can begin to hear the clamor for Mr. Immelt's removal from power. Are his comments truly game changers or simply a game is yet to be seen?

Posted by Rodney Johnson at December 15, 2009 6:55 PM

It takes true courage for a CEO of GE to admit error of basic principle.

While "Closing the gap" has been unthinkable 'socialism' in the US for a long time, it has been standard, self-evident, principle and policy for the rest of the G8 world. None of US competitors, including the UK, has bought the extreme, Utopian, fundamentalist economic, biz management and social ideologies that America practiced and preached past quarter century.

US (Mr Reagan's gang) invented these stuff, enjoyed the good life for 2 decades based on Fed's infinite credit machine, and congratulated itself as the master race. Then it found out what it created was pure fake bullshit, $15 trillion dollar with of it.

Jeff I. has courage, but he really admitted what is already clear reality. What he is saying is he will move on with a different principle and strategy. One that has been adopted by the rest of the G8 all this time.

Back to square one. But 20 years behind the times.

Posted by Tom K at December 15, 2009 9:46 PM

It is interesting to note that GE just signed an agreement with the leading Chinese aircraft company to set up a joint venture in Shanghai China to build avionics systems for global aircraft companies. According to the WSJ “…GE is trying to shift its avionics to China…” This is to support China’s first airliner, the COMAC C919, being marketed by China’s government-controlled aircraft company (CAC), to compete with the Boeing 737.

A current report in the China Daily global newspaper says, “Before too long…a significant percentage of all planes made in the world will be Chinese.”

A large part of U.S. aircraft bodies are already made in China. The major area left for U.S. control and manufacture was avionics (the brains of today’s aircraft)—until now.

GE’s jet engines are already being built by CFM International, a joint venture with Safran SA France, and is the only engine available on the 737. Apparently, Immelt is also planning on building more of its power-generation, locomotives, and medical equipment in countries like China and India.

The good news is that the new joint venture will, at least temporarily, create some new jobs in Michigan to help with the transition, but how many jobs could be created if ALL U.S. aircraft components were made in the U.S.? And, how many more jobs will be lost when China is building most of the planes in the world?

I wonder just how Immelt intends to help the bottom 25% of the population who are “poor,” or any part of the American working class for that matter? According to what GE is actually “doing,” it appears to be business as usual—stockholder value (greed?)—regardless of what Immelt says at West Point.

Posted by Bob Foster at December 16, 2009 4:09 AM

Great article. Makes us think of the various styles CEO's have and their impact on society.

Posted by Daniel Christadoss at December 16, 2009 5:41 AM

I think we need to distinguish between corporate greed and personal greed.

I'm ex-GE and can attest that it's a demanding company to work for but the rewards can be big. Certainly from what I saw in the more traditional GE businesses, the bonuses are generally earned.

Banking, of course, is a different story...

Perhaps the problem really was in treating shareholder value as a strategy and not as an objective or outcome. As a strategy, it can become the all-consuming be all and end all, hence the problems JI identifies: effectively, corporate greed. (And there is an element of personal greed in this as managers were probably thinking about those option schemes, too!) But as posted above, shareholder value is an important objective, albeit one that needs to move on from the 90's and consider more constituencies than just shareholders - e.g. customers, staff and the community.

Posted by Mark JF at December 16, 2009 6:01 AM

Bob - As usual, thanks for your words and research. They're much appreciated.Leaders should be held accountable for their words and explain precisely what their objectives are moving forward especially after admitting what many have known for some time now.

Mark - Your comment is thoughtful. I don't know when you worked for GE, but it appears that GE has been massively leveraged and has been engaging in financial engineering and acquiring diverse companies more than largely producing for quite some time. I completely agree with you and others that shareholder value should be an outcome not a goal.And, bonuses are good as incentives for real value created.

Regarding bonuses and banks, Goldman Sachs has decided that executives will not receive cash bonuses but stock options instead. When can those be, in essence, cashed out? Many of these guys simply delight in schemes and no amount of prodding or talk of goodwill will change this. Legislation is important and breaking these big banks up. Many are now even bigger.

Speaking of GE, does it seem like an anti-trust infraction that one company should have such influences in so many areas, not to mention as I have already done that it has not benefited shareholders or employees? Their stock is down and jobs are fewer, impacting the middle and bottom percentage and creating a greater divide of rich and poor. Where is the middle?

Posted by Judith Ellis at December 16, 2009 9:01 AM

Would everyone have been happier if Immelt had said nothing?
Immelt is actually in a position to make change. And he is saying all the right things. For some reason, as a culture we have no problem with people who say all the right things (many in the Pundit class, which in many ways includes Tom) - in fact they get much praise just for saying all the right things.
But when someone says all the right things and has the power to make change - and all the complications that come with using that power effectively - we attack them for being hypocritical or not moving quickly enough or whatever.
What happened to the economy is the result of greed, but it is also the result of old fashioned mistakes -
I'm not sure what my position would have been with the deregulation that took place in 2000 at the time. It happened and I had no idea it happened - but I bet, if I had been looking, I could have found the opposing views. People who are in power are there beause they worked hard to get there and they wanted to be there. I never wanted to be there. I never even thought about it.
I think we really need to quit pointing out who did what wrong - (only powerful people can screw up this big) - this is a very easy thing to do. MSNBC and Fox have built an industry on this. I'm a liberal - so I'll pick on MSNBC (and people like Bill Mahar and Arianna Huffington)
Can liberal pundits make a living by actually being fair - by saying things like - "OK, bad behavior is a factor in some of this,but so were honest mistakes - lets move on and figure out how to fix it" - they can't do that because they have thier audience and thier bankbook and ego in mind. In other words, everyone is greedy to one degree or another - Immelt is saying something important here and he is being attacked by both the left and the right (here and in the press) - But if he was a writer - and nothing more - he would be being praised - So we priase people who speak out but can't do anything about the situation (while still make a good living) , but dump all over someone who says the right things and can actually do something about it.
This seems silly to me.

Posted by zorro at December 16, 2009 10:51 AM

But when someone says all the right things and has the power to make change - and all the complications that come with using that power effectively - we attack them for being hypocritical or not moving quickly enough or whatever.

So, not standing up and cheering someone who, so far, has done nothing but talk -- yes, "say[ing] all the right things" still is just talk -- is now the same as "attack[ing] them?

Posted by Mary Malmros at December 16, 2009 2:27 PM

Zorro - Thoughtful comment above, but I would not consider what is being said here dumping. I think there are issues of credibility and trust here and these are things that once lost have to be earned and it will probably not happen overnight. It seems to me that most people here applaud the comment itself. But since Immelt is in a position to do something, as you have pointed out, his words especially will not be enough--perhaps not even a good deed here and there. Yes, they have created this mess in many regards and they need to do something about. Some may even think that his efforts are tantamount to tokenism, considering the much larger project being done in China. This being so it’s probably still about shareholder value. Tom asked whether GE is a model for 2010 nationally and globally, I would say at the present, no. It is far too early to tell based on the one example you gave above and the words of Immelt.

Your liberalism, or anyone else's liberalism or conservatism for that matter, does not particularly move me. Criticism is important and necessary . It doesn't matter if one shares your belief on most things or not. While we cannot go back in time we better be damn sure that we have learned the lessons history presents. Of course, with regards to some things, we seem to enjoy making the same mistakes over and over again largely because someone or some group is benefiting. I do not think that it was mere human error as you so simply stated. As Nassim said if you crash a plane with many people on board and narrowly escape with your life, leaving others dead, bruised and battered, should you be given the controls again? I think not.

Tom tweeted that he was annoyed that his senator Sanders was considering not giving the up vote for Bernanke. Why? He was among those "people in power" who watched this financial catastrophe happen and did not invest in the people enough to put certain measures in place to ensure that banks will lend instead of hoping that they will. I like Paul Volcker. He made some tough necessary decisions with regards to inflation and the economy as the Federal Reserve Chairman under Carter. But they worked. He was re-appointed by Reagan. By the way, power seemed to have gone to Greenspan’s head as Chairman. He wielded so much power that most people probably did not want to criticize his policies when they indeed should have! He walked around like the omniscient financial deity when, in fact, his policies were flawed. People seemed to worship and fear him. I remember distinctly having these thoughts some time ago.

We are barely emerging from a major financial catastrophe. The past in such instances should be prologue, for it will present a better map in moving forward. From what I gather, very little policy with regards to banks has changed. With regards to GE, your nice comment in pointing out who did what does not seem to be the heart of this thread. It’s not about blame, but about considering what is actually being done now with what has preceded it. Anything else is simply "silly." Most have praised the comment itself. Do you expect us to simply take Immelt at his word because he is powerful? Why would we do that? Plus, power does not always equate to knowledge or proper leadership.

"People who are in power are there because they worked hard to get there."

I must say that I laughed aloud at this comment as I think in many cases nothing could be further from the truth. Many people are in power because they played the game properly, didn’t ruffle any feathers, shook their bobbled heads, and waited. Others are in power because of campaign financing, the status quo and the disinterested nature of the electorate. Many in Congress need to go fishing. Just looking at many senators and congresspersons makes me tired. Power is an aphrodisiac and many will do whatever it takes to maintain it. For the fun of it, shall we sing a chorus of "The Victors?"

Hail! to the victors valiant
Hail! to the conqu'ring Immelt
Hail! Hail! to Immelt
The leader and best!
Hail! to the victors valiant
Hail! to the conqu'ring hero
Hail! Hail! to Immelt
The champion of the West! (and East!)

Having said all of the above, I do sincerely wish GE the best. :-)

One other thing, Zorro. Let’s not rehash the importance of professions again. Each has its role.

Posted by Judith Ellis at December 16, 2009 3:53 PM

"Tom asked whether GE is a model for 2010 nationally and globally, I would say at the present, no. It is far too early to tell based on the one example you gave above and the words of Immelt." Why are Toms mere words 'Brilliant'
but Immelts actions (expanding blue collar jobs in Kentucky) something less than wonderful?.

And who else has any example? Apple?
The one example could very well be the only example anywhere. And it is bound to have an effect on CEO's.
People who are actually in a position to do something (and have managed something large - and are not known merely for writing and talking should be given more le-way.
Who has a more difficult job? Ariana or Obama?
As a culture, we tend to praise the 'talkers' and dump on the doers. This of course comes with the territory, because the talkers don't have the same sort of direct effect on our lives. But there is also something quite absurd about it.

Posted by zorro at December 21, 2009 5:55 PM

Zorro - Are you a talker?

Posted by Judith Ellis at December 21, 2009 9:32 PM